backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 54 comment(s) - last by lagomorpha.. on Jul 7 at 5:18 PM

CGI of Toronto's newest streetcars  (Source: Bombardier)
A popular alternative to hybrid buses and subways gets a boost

Bombardier is well-known worldwide as a manufacturer of aircraft, snowmobiles, and personal watercraft. The company has annual sales of almost $20 billion USD, and is well diversified into multiple transportation markets. One of these markets is light rail vehicles, commonly known as streetcars.

Many European cities have highly developed light rail/streetcar lines that both complement and supplement subway lines. New subway lines are extremely expensive and can cost over $1 billion per kilometer to build. They also require high urban densities and heavy passenger volumes to be effective.

Light rail lines are much cheaper to build and operate. They can carry higher volumes than buses, while creating virtually no pollution due to their electric propulsion. Light rail lines are usually built on their own right-of-way on street level, but can also be built underground in dense neighborhoods. These underground lines can be converted to subway lines once population densities increase.

That is the current plan for the City of Toronto.  The Toronto Transit Commission has just ordered 204 streetcars from Bombardier in the largest single order for light rail vehicles in the world. The contract is valued at $851 million CAD ($735 million USD, €523 Million).

"The contract represents the largest single order ever for light rail vehicles worldwide and solidifies Bombardier's position as the world's leading provider of light rail technology," the company said in a statement.

Canada's largest city plans to replace its aging streetcar fleet with these next generation, low-floor vehicles. The new streetcars will provide improved reliability and lower operating costs for the TTC. The wide range of features for the new streetcars include: a step-less interior allowing easy access at street level, car capacity for more than 240 passengers, increased heating and air conditioning capacity, improved customer comfort, enhanced accessibility, safety and other interior features, locations for bicycles, wheelchairs and strollers, more efficient passenger boarding and exiting, improved passenger communications features, and a regenerative braking system that feeds power back into the TTC's network.

An additional 400 vehicles could also be ordered at a later date as Toronto expands its streetcar network by 120 kilometers (75 miles) of new double-track lines, said Bombardier.
 
In March 2007, the TTC unveiled a bold $6 billion CAD plan to build seven dedicated streetcar right-of-way routes in an interconnected network intended to incorporate the more distant reaches of the city into its mass transit system. Many of those areas are served by overcrowded buses on congested streets, leading to delays for passengers. This "Transit City" program is contingent on funding from the Province of Ontario and the Canadian Federal government, which has still not been confirmed.

The first prototype streetcars modified to Toronto's specifications will be delivered in 2011. Production vehicles will be delivered over the following seven years, from 2012 to 2018.

More than 450 of these FLEXITY low-floor streetcars are currently in service in Linz and Innsbruck (Austria), Lodz (Poland), Eskisehir (Turkey), Geneva (Switzerland), Brussels (Belgium), Marseille (France), as well as in Valencia and Alicante (Spain). FLEXITY low-floor vehicles will soon enter service in Augsburg and Krefeld (Germany), and in Palermo (Italy).

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I hate the 0 pollution meme
By namechamps on 7/1/2009 11:07:38 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Light rail lines are much cheaper to build and operate. They can carry higher volumes than buses, while creating virtually no pollution due to their electric propulsion.


While electric propulsion generates no electricity the electricity must be generated.

Large electric generation produces LESS pollution per watt/HP but it still does pollute.

Something like this would be accurate:
quote:
They can carry higher volumes than buses, while creating substantially less pollution due to the efficiencies of large scale electric generation and their electric propulsion.




RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By namechamps on 7/1/2009 11:10:25 AM , Rating: 2
That should read "while electrical propulsion generates no pollution ..."


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By neilrieck on 7/3/2009 7:27:33 AM , Rating: 2
Adding to your point, a fossil-fuel powered vehicle releases pollution in the dense city centers where people are trying to breathe. Electric vehicles consume energy in one spot while the pollution was emitted elsewhere.


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By Yawgm0th on 7/1/2009 11:22:02 AM , Rating: 5
You beat me to it. It really irks me when DT author's make the ridiculous implication that electricity usage isn't pollution.

But at the same time, I have to point out that that isn't really the point. Even if light rails were of identical efficiency to buses, it would be nice because it relocates the pollution or changes the type of pollution. I'd much rather have a nuclear or even coal power plant 50 miles away powering a light rail than have to live in a city filled with giant buses spewing smog.

This is one of those issues where pollution is about public health, not the environment in general or global warming.


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By Mint on 7/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By Tsuwamono on 7/1/2009 6:16:44 PM , Rating: 4
What you're forgetting is Canada has alot more clean energy then the USA.


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By Jansen (blog) on 7/1/2009 11:23:04 AM , Rating: 1
The streetcars themselves don't generate pollution.

If we wanted to get into pollution by source, I would talk about pollution from buses and also pollution created from diesel production.

It is accurate as it stands, I'm just not talking about pollution from the power source. The city of Toronto gets half its power from nuclear reactors.


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By keegssj on 7/1/2009 11:41:06 AM , Rating: 1
I too get annoyed by articles (not just here) that imply zero pollution from the use of electric vehicles but don't at least mention that there is a pollution cost from the electricity generation.


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By namechamps on 7/1/2009 11:45:11 AM , Rating: 3
The point is that by being dishonest it hides the reality.

EV propulsion is cleaner.

It is cleaner because electrical generation can be as high as 60% to 85% from fossil fuels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle

An internal combustion engine is only about 15% efficient.

The huge inefficiencies of ICE mean than even a power grid running purely on coal powering EV is cleaner than gasoline ICE engines.

So EV is cleaner but to imply it is pollution free is just dishonest.


By lagomorpha on 7/7/2009 5:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
"An internal combustion engine is only about 15% efficient."

A diesel engine of the size used in trains can be as high as 50% efficient. No coal generator is remotely close to 100% efficient. Don't try to pretend variables don't exist to feel better about EV.


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By namechamps on 7/1/2009 11:41:14 AM , Rating: 2
It may be the truth but not the WHOLE truth.

Two cars:
1) EV car + gasoline generator at home to charge EV car
2) gasoline powered car

Hypothetically both use 400 gallons of gas per year.
Gasoline car burns 400 gallons. The EV car is charged by generator which burns 400 gallons.

By your "logic" the EV car powered by gasoline generator is "pollution free".

Now what if I put the generator in the trunk of the car so I can "recharge on the go" is it still pollution free?

If so the Chevy volt is pollution free.
Volt = electric drivetrain + gasoline generator.


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By noirsoft on 7/1/2009 7:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
Why not also include the pollution generated by extracting the gasoline and refining it in the gas car? Why not include the pollution generated by making the car in the first place? Because those are variable quantities that have nothing to do with the pollution generation of the actual car and therefore add meaningless numbers that do nothing but confuse any comparison.

As the author correctly points out, the vehicle generates no pollution itself. Zero pollution from the vehicle is not the same as zero impact.

And I'm an AGW skeptic. :P


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By Koder on 7/1/2009 11:57:52 AM , Rating: 1
Give this post a 6


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By samoak54 on 7/1/2009 12:14:18 PM , Rating: 3
You forget, or rather are ignorant off, the fact that, here in the GTA, an enormous percentage of our power is generated at Niagara Falls. Please take your foot out of your mouth. Hydroelectricity is as clean as it gets.


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By namechamps on 7/1/2009 1:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
fine some PERCENTAGE is hydro which means some % is NOT.

So there is some pollution. I never said EV was bad.

Hell EV from electricity from COAL is better than burning gas in an ICE engine (only 15% efficient)

To pretend EV is 100% pollution free is wrong though.

We could substantially reduce world pollution by moving everything we can to EV but there still will be pollution. Anyone pretending otherwise has their head in the sand.


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By Tsuwamono on 7/1/2009 6:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.theimo.com/

get the facts..

that looks like 2/3rds is either Nuclear or Hydro, next largest is gas, then coal.. and lastly wind, which was only recently started to be implemented on large scale.


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By Tsuwamono on 7/1/2009 6:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
better link

http://www.theimo.com/imoweb/media/md_supply.asp

Nuclear = %33.6
Hydro = %23
Coal = %18.9
Gas = %16
Wind = %2.1
Other = %6.5


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By evilharp on 7/2/2009 8:05:51 AM , Rating: 3
There is a better dynamic graph on the IESO homepage http://www.ieso.com/default.asp. See the
Generation by Fuel Type pie graph. Almost 75% of the Province's current demand of 12,945 MW is met using nuclear power:

quote:

Nuclear: 9543 MW
Hydro: 2674 MW
Gas: 1288 MW
Coal: 18 MW
Wind: 24 MW
Other: 135 MW
Fuels used to meet demand Jul. 2 - 5:00-6:00


The link you refer to is percentage of total installed capacity (34,056 MW). Ontario has never hit that level of demand. Peek demand rarely exceeds 25,000MW, the Province's record is 27,005MW (see: http://www.ieso.com/imoweb/media/md_peaks.asp).

Incidentally, theIMO is now the IESO.


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By Iaiken on 7/2/2009 10:38:39 AM , Rating: 2
I used to work for the IESO and "most" of the time the province can get along using just Nuclear and Hydro.

Hydro has continuously evolved and and expanded to increase the amount of power Ontario has available. The unfortunate effect of privatization is that there is little to no impetus to build new nukes and a ban on new coal-fire stations.

This leaves the only feasible for us as follows:

1. Conservation
2. Increase efficiencies (generation, transmission, usage)
3. Expand hydro & natural gas generation
4. Develop supplemental sources (wind, solar)

I'm interested in seeing what will happen when time comes for the Ontario nukes at Pickering, Darlington and Bruce to be shut down for refurbishing or otherwise closed permanently.


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By bentheman939 on 7/1/2009 1:12:58 PM , Rating: 3
Ontario generates most of its power from hydroelectric and to a lesser extent nuclear sources. In fact, the power authority in the province is called Ontario Hydro, and people often refer to their electic bills as their "hydro bills"

While I'm not saying hydroelectric is clean (methyl mercury contamination of watersheds and habitat destruction are fairly serious), it still generates no CO2


By namechamps on 7/1/2009 1:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
No problems there.

EV has less pollution than gasoline engines due to efficiencies and economies of scale.

EV from cleaner sources produces even less pollution.

The author could have used term "reduced pollution by large scale electrical generation" and then talked about how the power comes mostly from nuclear & hydro very clean sources.

It still isn't "pollution free" though. To state otherwise is simply false.


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By Tsuwamono on 7/1/2009 6:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.theimo.com/

Got that backwards, Nuclear THEN hydro.


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By evilharp on 7/2/2009 8:34:41 AM , Rating: 3
While you are correct that the people of Ontario frequently refer to electricity as "Hydro" bills, Ontario Hydro no longer exists. The Energy Competition Act of 1998 split Ontario Hydro into several parts:

quote:

•Ontario Power Generation (OPG) focused on generation
•Hydro One focused on transmission and distribution
•The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) focused on electricity system dispatch. Prior to 2004, the IESO was known as the Independent Market Operator (IMO).
•Ontario Electrical Safety Association (ESA) focused on safety
•Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC) focused on debt retirement.


See: http://www.canadaenergy.ca/index.php?hydro=competi...

The power authority in Ontario is the Ontario Power Authority . The OPA doesn't run the grid or the electricity Market (the IESO does that), rather it's mission is to plan and procure electricity supply from diverse resources and facilitate the measures needed to achieve ambitious conservation targets. ( http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/ )

Unlike Quebec, Ontario does not have enough rivers to meet its energy demands through Hydro-Electric generation. As a result, 33% of Ontario's installed generation is Nuclear and 23% is Hydro-electric. See: http://www.ieso.com/imoweb/media/md_supply.asp The Nuclear percentage was to increase with the construction of additional generators at Darlington (replacing the Coal generation that was to be phased out by 2014), however, these plans are now on hold ( http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/29/... )


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By callmeroy on 7/1/2009 3:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
doesn't "virtually" used in a sentence imply the meaning of "nearly" or "almost"?

saying something produces no pollution and something produces virtually no produces communicate two different meanings, they are not the same.


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By callmeroy on 7/1/2009 3:50:45 PM , Rating: 1
Damn I make a shit load of typos......i meant "virtually no POLLUTION (I wrote produces)".....


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By Samus on 7/1/2009 5:45:09 PM , Rating: 2
I've actually been on one of these in Austria (Tirol) years ago and it was daunting how far advanced light mass-transit is outside of the USA. We still use DC power in a 100 year old subway system in Chicago, and here in San Diego, the most modern streetcar-holding American City, the street cars are 30 years old and only run downtown. You still need to take a bus to get just 3 miles north of the downtown area, and only buses run to the airport(!)

It's depressing, because I hate driving, and I hate loading my bike on the bus.


RE: I hate the 0 pollution meme
By lco45 on 7/1/2009 11:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but the pollution isn't blowing into your face like it does with a bus.

Luke


It's about time...
By DanYute on 7/1/2009 9:50:12 AM , Rating: 2
I commute daily downtown Toronto and I look forward to this upgrade...my only concern is weather or not there will be a significant fare increase in order to shoulder some of the cost.




RE: It's about time...
By armagedon on 7/1/2009 10:15:52 AM , Rating: 2
I live in Montreal. They have been talking about this too recently but no action yet. For pricing, i think it depends on the popularity. I suspect it will attract a lot of people so that should help maintain an accessible fare.
Thank god ! how many cars, it's going to take out from downtown. I don't understand why cities don't go full speed on that kind of transportation. Beside congestion from future personal electric cars (if they ever become popular and affordable) is no different then gas powered ones.


RE: It's about time...
By Oregonian2 on 7/1/2009 10:31:50 AM , Rating: 2
We've light rail here too, and it's comparatively new (put in maybe ten years ago?).

Think the reason some cities may not go that route is that many may calculate what it costs the taxpayers on a per-person or per-car-removed basis and the results may be frightening. Certainly does not pay for itself out of it's own ticket revenues (not here anyway).

Probably takes a city where the density and traffic patterns are strongly delineated enough to result in sufficiently high usage or a planning board where such things don't matter (or usage can just be assumed... build it and they will come...). :-)


RE: It's about time...
By MrDiSante on 7/1/2009 11:33:24 AM , Rating: 2
I shouldn't think so - I'm pretty sure most of the funding will be provided by the federal and provincial governments. As well I vaguely recall Harper promising an enormous amount of money as part of the stimulus package to TTC.

I feel that the bigger issue is that the LR system need more dedicated lanes as opposed to more streetcars. If you've ever taken the 504 King (or any route without a dedicated lane) downtown, you'd have noticed that the streetcar spends more time waiting for traffic than anything else. They should be pouring money into dedicated lanes as opposed to new cars.


RE: It's about time...
By darkhawk1980 on 7/1/2009 1:05:15 PM , Rating: 2
In the past year I've traveled to Toronto on a number of occasions, and in all honesty their public transportation system is amazing, and easily beats anything I have seen or experienced here in the US. The subways were clean and very nice to travel on.

I don't believe the LR system is a worthwhile endeavor in Toronto. It's impossible to get 'dedicated' lanes that won't have to stop for opposing traffic on ground level in the city. They will always have to stop for traffic, one way or another which slows things down, consumes more energy (stopping, starting, etc...), and is undesired.

My honest opinion would be to either make above ground level railway/subway, or increase their subway's exposure. Seeing as how difficult and expensive either of those situations would be, I can see why they decided to expand the LR instead, but the problem is that it will still be slow and will disrupt traffic to some degree.

Nonetheless, even though I'm an American, I must applaud the city of Toronto for a great public transportation system.


RE: It's about time...
By Malhavoc on 7/1/2009 1:21:31 PM , Rating: 2
My hope is that this not only improves transportation and commutes within the city, but for those trying to pass through the city.

Unfortunately even the 427 gets congested at times.


RE: It's about time...
By psychmike on 7/1/2009 1:30:11 PM , Rating: 3
As a Torontonian, thank you for the kind words. In my opinion, however, there are serious problems with our transit system which may not be as obvious to occasional users. As has been pointed out, some streetcar routes are incredibly slow due to shared road usage with cars. Where possible, dedicated streetcar lanes should be used and these do substantially solve the problem. The Spadina line is a good example of this. Also, our subway cars are getting very old. We spend an ENORMOUS amount of labour costs because of unions. It's not uncommon for a fare collector who sits at a booth and makes change (essentially a retail position) to make $60,000 per year plus health and pension benefits. Utterly and completely ridiculous.

I went to Hong Kong last year and was blown away by their transit system. It's a mixed private and public system. You can access the system just by swiping your wallet or purse over a reader. The RDIF transit pass doesn't have to be taken out. The subways are fast, clean, and quiet. No eating is allowed on the transit system and most people attend quietly to their portable entertainment or communication devices. Many of the buses are privately owned but a transit user can hop on any of them. This creates competition for the bus companies to keep their vehicles clean and on-schedule. I realize it's not really fair to compare the systems. Hong Kong has a LOT more money than Toronto and its population is a lot more homogeneous (for good and bad) and shares similar cultural values. In contrast, Toronto is dynamic, diverse, but somewhat chaotic.

What is clear, however, is that adding more highways won't work in Toronto. It's not just the arteries. Every major street is jammed between 8-10am and 4-7pm. Create an economic disincentive for regular car use and plough that money into transit. As it stands, once you've gone through the cost of buying and maintaining a car and paying the annual local tax, the per trip use is extremely low. I didn't get my licence until I was 27 and didn't get a car until I was 31 but now that I have one, it's still much easier to drive than to wait and pay for public transit.


RE: It's about time...
By Hieyeck on 7/2/2009 2:07:13 AM , Rating: 2
I believe highways WOULD work, if people weren't faceplamingly silly about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Road
I believe this was intended to serve as a new highway, instead, the traffic it would've handled is diverted off to the DVP (the only parkway in the world where you actually park!) or the 427. A little bit of story behind this not included in the wiki: apparently most of the land was acquired for the 1982 expansion, except for 6 meters of land and that is the reason it fell through - probably a little exaggeration thrown in here as I wasn't personally alive back then, but so say my friends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/407_ETR
Originally intended to offload traffic from Highway 7 (which is actually an extra-wide local road) and provide an alternate for people (particularly truckers) around the heavily used section of the 401 (a major east-west corridor serving southern Ontario) that passes through the center of amalgamated Toronto (roughly old Toronto's north border), they leased it to a private company for only a few billion and is now probably the most underused highway in southern Ontario thanks to exorbitant fees - the time it takes to travel 10 minutes is roughly $2.00, plus an additional fee if you don't subscribe to their transponder. Some may say the fee is not so bad, but consider that it took $100 billion in taxpayer money to first acquire the land and it also happens to be Ontario's ONLY toll highway.

Back on track, Toronto has it pretty good. 10+ different companies operate overlapping routes with limited transfer options in LA - a total NIGHTMARE for a visitor. Vancouver and NY bus routes travel in loops and meander along odd paths - definitely not easy to follow and there are gaps in the coverage. By far what impresses visitors about the Toronto's transit is the straight lines its routes take. Setup in a grid, directions are a breeze to understand and the simple transfer system can get you to most places in 1 or 2 transfers, and all but 1 route (don't quote me) passes by or terminates at a subway station. What we have is a good system. What it needs is less unions.

As to the costs - urbanized Toronto covers more area than the whole of Hong Kong (which is only about 40% urbanized) and has about half the population that HK does. Urban sprawl is public transit's greatest enemy.


RE: It's about time...
By typo101 on 7/3/2009 1:07:21 PM , Rating: 2
First off, its cool to hear people say nice things about Toronto. Thanks to those of you who enjoyed your visit.

Now on to my reply. Urban sprawl also steals farmlands, and increases gas usage for all those long commutes, but the side benefit is all the bigots move away because they are afraid of living with other cultures.

Wouldn't more highways promote urban sprawl? Isn't that kind of a bad thing? Or were you just explaining why highways would solve decrease traffic, not considering the larger issues?


RE: It's about time...
By mmntech on 7/1/2009 11:56:55 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, there will be. Toronto had to foot two thirds of the bill for the streetcars after a deal with the feds fell through. Before you start screaming at Harper, Miller had had filed for the money under the Economic Action Plan. The EAP requires that cities requesting stimulus funds have projects that are shovel ready (can start and create jobs immediately) and that the jobs be created within that city. The Bombardier facility that makes the streetcars is in Thunder Bay and construction won't begin for at least a year, so Toronto didn't qualify for the stimulus loan. Furthermore, this was the only project where they applied for the money. Mayor Miller and TTC Commissioner Adam Giambroni took a major gamble knowing they couldn't beat the odds and cheat the system, and thus failed.

The city can't pay for the project now but went ahead with it anyway. In order to pay for the streetcars, council is now diverting money away from other critical TTC projects and thus a fare increase is inevitable at this point. It isn't the city's duty to create jobs in other (distant) communities and there were lower bidders on the project. I don't travel to Toronto that often (I live in the metropolitan area though) but I do know the TTC is just an absolute mess, mostly the result of mismanagement by the city. Toronto is almost bankrupt as a result of poor decision making by it's socialist council. Unfortunately, this seems to be a growing trend in general concerning Ontario municipalities. Local corruption and mismanagement is at the highest level I've ever seen, and getting worse. No accountability because nobody votes. Mayor David Miller currently has one of the lowest approval ratings in the city's history, especially since his public service union buddies went on strike over whether they can bank their 18 annual sick days towards early retirement.


Europeans?
By Yawgm0th on 7/1/2009 11:35:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many European cities have highly developed light rail/streetcar lines that both complement and supplement subway lines.


What's with the Europhilia? We have a highly effective ground light rail system right here in the Twin Cities, running between Minneapolis, the Mall of America, and the airport. It's cheap, fast, and sees a lot of volume. It will be expanded to Saint Paul, and hopefully other parts of the metro at some point.

Also, it neither compliments nor supplements our non-existent subway lines. People use transit stations as car parks and/or take the bus.

In any case, there are other light rail networks in the US and some cities have extensive, effective rail networks that expand well beyond subways or light rails.




RE: Europeans?
By Jansen (blog) on 7/1/2009 11:43:22 AM , Rating: 2
A lot of those systems call themselves light rail, but are actually commuter train systems where people park and ride.

An urban light rail system works within the city and neighbourhoods.

Also note that monorails are classed seperately from light rail systems due to their specialised infrastructure.


RE: Europeans?
By Yawgm0th on 7/1/2009 1:31:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A lot of those systems call themselves light rail, but are actually commuter train systems where people park and ride.

An urban light rail system works within the city and neighbourhoods.
If you want to define light rail like that, okay, but it's your definition.
APTA:
http://www.apta.com/research/stats/rail/definition...
quote:
Light rail (streetcar, tramway, or trolley) is lightweight passenger rail cars operating singly (or in short, usually two-car, trains) on fixed rails in right-of-way that is not separated from other traffic for much of the way. Light rail vehicles are typically driven electrically with power being drawn from an overhead electric line via a trolley or a pantograph.


Wiki:
quote:
The basic concepts of light rail were put forward by H. Dean Quinby in 1962 in an article in Traffic Quarterly called "Major Urban Corridor Facilities: A New Concept". Quinby distinguished this new concept in rail transportation from historic streetcar/tram systems as:

* Having the capacity to carry more passengers
* Appearing like a train, with more than one car connected together
* Having more doors to facilitate full utilization of the space
* Faster and quieter in operation

The term light rail transit (LRT) was introduced in North America in 1972 to describe this new concept of rail transportation.[13]


Light rail is a classification of how the system works and how it is used, not necessarily where it goes in a given city or metropolitan area or how extensive the network is.

quote:
Also note that monorails are classed seperately from light rail systems due to their specialised infrastructure.
So are elevated rails, subways, inter-city commuter trains, freight trains, etc. Effective mass transportation doesn't have to be classified as any one particular form of anything -- it just needs to be effective. My point was that we already do very effective rail-based transportation in North America. The Europeans don't have some sort of monopoly on light rails nor did they pioneer it. Many American cities have effective light rails in particular and mass transit in general.


Bombardier and Streetcars
By Nitrof on 7/1/2009 10:39:22 AM , Rating: 2
The largest builder ?
Alstom claims to sell more streetcars than anyone else.

It seems that according to how you define the terms
light rail vehicles and streetcars, one has the record or not.




RE: Bombardier and Streetcars
By oab on 7/1/2009 10:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
Bombardier claims it is the leading builder, not the largest builder.

The contract is the largest single-purchase contract for LRV's.


What exactly...
By strikeback03 on 7/1/2009 11:06:10 AM , Rating: 2
...makes a light rail car running underground different from a subway?




RE: What exactly...
By Jansen (blog) on 7/1/2009 11:26:20 AM , Rating: 2
Passenger capacity, power requirements, signalling, frequency of travel...


2 Problems
By geokilla on 7/1/2009 11:29:04 AM , Rating: 2
1. Money. Where will David Miller and the city get the money? Let's see, LET'S RAISE THE TAXES AND TTC FARES!! AGAIN! Seriously all this guy cares bout is taxes. We need another mayor.

2. Space. The TTC is planning to make light rail transit on Shheppard Avenue and Finch Avenue if I remember correctly. Where the hell are they going to get the space to do that? The streets are already wide enough and there's lots of traffic jams at certain sections of the street. Plus the sides of the street are developed and there isn't much space left to widen the street.

I'm all for this program, but I have a feeling this won't work out as well as it's expected.




RE: 2 Problems
By poohbear on 7/1/2009 11:49:54 AM , Rating: 2
they really need to make bus/ streetcar ONLY lanes and if anyone goes in em they get a hefty fine. right now u see all kinds of drivers ignoring this rule and just drive in the "bus only" lanes. Anyways looking forward to this in TO, i dont live downtown but if they're gonna bring uptown (sheppard finch area) then hey all the power to em. Sucks that the TTC is so expensive for those that dont own monthly passes.:(


Public transport
By rudy on 7/1/2009 2:47:34 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone raves about it but how come I basically always here that it is not profitable and only is so when they tax people everyone even those that do not use it. When the economy started to go bad you had all these towns asking for federal bailouts cause they could not afford public transportation it doesnt make any sense the transportation should have been up as people were losing their cars and trying to travel cheaper. All public transit systems should be self sufficient they should charge a high enough fair to cover all costs without adding any tax to people who do not use it. If there is any tax it should only be what those people would have been paying for road upkeep or expansion. To me it always seems like public transportation is a unsustainable ponzi scheme of sorts where more is dumped into it then they get out of it. Simply put if people value a product they will pay for it if they are unwilling to do that then it is not a cost saving solution.




RE: Public transport
By maxcue on 7/1/2009 6:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
Although I think those with private cars *should* pay more than those without cars, all citizens benefit from an excellent infrastructure, something America pointedly does NOT have, and that includes good roads AND good public transit. The U.S. is many decades behind Europe in this and that is one reason their economy will likely rebound first. (Of course, not counting the fact that they were lousy allies even if we *were* fighting the wrong war).


A few hurdles to get over first...
By wuZheng on 7/2/2009 10:04:37 AM , Rating: 2
As was previously said, the federal government has yet to confirm financial commitment to the project. The Ontario government however has recently set aside some of the money for the "Move Ontario 2020" initiative in order to offset some of the TTC's cost for implementing the new system.

As has been said, and from what I have read from the TTC...

quote:
Light Rail Transit (LRT) is an updated and improved version of the streetcars that have moved Torontonians for decades, and will bring a new concept of reliable and comfortable transit service to Toronto’s busiest transit routes. Using advanced and proven technology from around the world, modern electrically-powered Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) will carry passengers in their own dedicated transit lanes, in most cases in the middle of the road.


So, its own dedicated right-of-way lanes are planned for... but rearranging the existing road structure for this is going to take awhile and cost a lot more than the TTC currently projects. Why? Because that is exactly what happened when they decided to build the Sheppard subway line, which is btw, probably the most underused subway line on this side of the planet. And the reason for why the TTC has been VERY cautious about expanding beyond Downsview/Finch stations. So much so that the current ecological/environmental impact survey is STILL underway.

Another hurdle for the TTC, someone here pointed it out, and I think it really needs to be emphasized. A TTC ticket/fare collector at some arbitrary subway station earned about $100,000 one year by doing overtime, the average collector earns around the previously stated $60,000/year salary. I know fresh electrical engineering grads working for AMD @ 1 Commerce Valley who make less than that.

Absolutely ridiculous.

These people need to accept that they took the jobs no one else wanted because it represents how little skill they require. These people need to be paid no more than $10-15/hour and have their union benefits slimmed down. Otherwise the TTC will NEVER achieve the operational efficiency necessary to expand and improve Toronto's transit system at acceptable financial and time costs.

Two cents from a frequent Rocket Rider.




By typo101 on 7/3/2009 1:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
On a related note, transit should be categorized as an essential service so the union can't go on strike to get their ticket collectors ludicrous salaries.

It's kind of hard to convince people to get rid of their cars and "ride the rocket" to work when they can't promise to stay running during a contract dispute. And then there's the impact on the city's economy when everybody stays home all weekend.


Good, sensible plans.
By psychobriggsy on 7/1/2009 11:28:25 AM , Rating: 2
This is how you do public transport.

Use facts and reality to decide what to implement, not backhanders. The end result actually benefits the people it is being built for, and the city as a whole. A city with good transport links is attractive to businesses.

In Cambridge, UK, we're getting a guided bus to avoid congestion. It has its own route outside the city (where there isn't much congestion), and once it hits the city, it leaves this route and uses the normal roads (where there is congestion). The sad thing is that this route is being built along a disused railway line that used to join up with the main rail station in Cambridge. But some bus companies wanted the contract, so the outcome, despite masses of opposition from locals, was never in doubt.

Not that I know what the Torontians think about it.




Meanwhile..
By eddieroolz on 7/1/2009 11:20:32 PM , Rating: 2
While Toronto's public transit authority has the capacity to fling around $6billion, us in the West Coast are stuck trying to make ends by increasing taxes on almost everything, while the Federal Government doesn't pitch in anything to expand our SkyTrain lines.

I must blame our politicians here too though. No one seems to be too intent on expanding the light rail like in Toronto and instead insist on expensive SkyTrain system which is just plain ridiculous to build and maintain.




Space mirrors for power
By maxcue on 7/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Space mirrors for power
By Tsuwamono on 7/1/2009 6:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
and this has to do with the article how?


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki